Civil Procedure
The Prison Discovery Crisis
For incarcerated plaintiffs, meaningful discovery is essential to proving and exposing wrongdoing in prison. Yet prison discovery is broken. This Article explores the extensive written and unwritten barriers to evidence gathering in prison, and, through a 200-case study, reveals courts’ central role in both perpetuating—and potentially resolving—this crisis.
To Be Given to God: Contemporary Civil Forfeiture as a Taking
Civil asset forfeiture was once a law-enforcement tool. Today, however, police and prosecutors use forfeiture to fundraise, not to fight crime. This Note challenges the constitutionality of these profit-motivated government confiscations. It argues that these “contemporary civil forfeitures” are not forfeitures at all—they are compensable takings.
The Plaintiff Police
In civil litigation, police most commonly appear as defendants. But police also act as plaintiffs, suing the individuals they police. This Article argues that these plaintiff police claims cause significant democratic harms and should be limited. Compensation and deterrence can be achieved through other, less politically corrosive mechanisms.
Refining Constitutional Torts
Constitutional torts allow victims of governmental misconduct to seek redress. But the doctrinal regime is in disarray because it vacillates between two conceptions of constitutional rights: rights that “nullify” changes to subconstitutional law and rights that impose “duties” on officers. The Feature defends a regime that embraces constitutional duties.
The New Standing Doctrine, Judicial Federalism, and the Problem of Forumless Claims
The Supreme Court’s new standing cases have further narrowed the class of claims justiciable in federal court. Some state courts have followed suit, leaving valid federal claims without any viable forum. We argue that the Supremacy Clause requires state courts to vindicate federal rights by hearing some of these claims.
When the Sovereign Contracts: Troubling the Public/Private Distinction in International Law
The distinction between a state’s public and private acts is flimsy and unclear. Choosing to see an act as essentially private or public often obscures the other features that complicate that characterization. And selectively recognizing the private aspects of transactions has disproportionately subordinated Global South nations.
The Anatomy of Social Movement Litigation
This Note argues that particular elements of the litigation process offer social movement activists distinctive opportunities to draw extralegal benefits from legal action. These benefits, however, are enabled and constrained by the procedural rules and norms that structure litigation itself.
The Weaponization of Attorney’s Fees in an Age of Constitutional Warfare
States are using the threat of catastrophic, one-sided fee awards to evade judicial review in controversial areas like abortion and gun control. Litigants challenging such laws—and their attorneys—face liability for the opposing party’s legal fees, while the state and its ideological allies bear no such risk.
Unpacking Third-Party Standing
This Article “unpacks” the doctrine of third-party standing. First, it identifies true third-party standing problems by distinguishing them from first-party claims, largely by reference to the “zone of interests” concept. Second, it distinguishes among three types of parties invoking third-party standing: directly regulated parties, collaterally injured parties, and representative parties.
Arbitration Asymmetries in Class Actions
Courts frequently deny class certification when confronted with “arbitration asymmetries”: cases where the class representative is not bound to arbitrate claims, but class members may be. The result? Courts enforce illegal or nonexistent arbitration agreements. To avoid such patent injustice, this Essay advances an alternate approach to arbitration asymmetries.
Retroactive Adjudication
This Article defends the inherent retroactivity of judicial lawmaking. It argues that there is no principled foundation for the Supreme Court’s non-retroactivity doctrine, and it provides an alternative framework: courts should always apply “new law” to old cases, and constrain its effects instead through well-recognized limitations on rights of action.
The Attorney General’s Settlement Authority and the Separation of Powers
Can the federal government make policy when it settles litigation? Surprisingly, yes. This Note offers a comprehensive account of the Department of Justice’s authority to enter into policymaking settlements, and a new separation-of-powers defense of that authority. Ultimately, policymaking settlements can fit comfortably within existing administrative-law norms.
Examining the Case for Socialized Law
In Equal Justice: Fair Legal Systems in an Unfair World, Frederick Wilmot-Smith argues that it is only by deprivatizing markets for legal services that we can ever hope to achieve equal justice. This Book Review explains why his bold prescription is worthy of serious examination and critical debate.
Better Together? The Peril and Promise of Aggregate Litigation for Trafficked Workers
Procedural rules often prevent classes of trafficked workers from vindicating their rights in court. This Note examines the difficulties that face labor-trafficking class actions and proposes a new litigation strategy. That strategy urges state attorneys general to bring a more effective kind of aggregate suit on behalf of trafficked workers.
Keeping Litigation at Home: The Role of States in Preventing Unjust Choice of Forum
Contractual choice-of-forum clauses pose significant obstacles to individuals’ claims against corporations. But states can and do enact legislation protecting vulnerable parties from unjust forum selection. This Note discusses the breadth of existing state anti-choice-of-forum statutes and argues that states should continue legislating in this area.
Did Bristol-Myers Squibb Kill the Nationwide Class Action?
This Essay presents the first comprehensive survey examining whether Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court significantly limits multistate class actions in federal courts. It finds, contrary to many commenters, that a large supermajority of cases reject the argument that BMS’s constraints apply with respect to unnamed plaintiff class members.
Nudges and Norms in Multidistrict Litigation: A Response to Engstrom
Multidistrict-litigation judges have invented a medley of new procedures to adjudicate the mass-tort cases before them. As plaintiff fact sheets and Lone Pine orders become widespread, however, formal rules’ built-in protections wane and procedural burdens may fall more harshly on one side.
The Lessons of Lone Pine
Lone Pine orders have become a prominent fixture of the mass-tort landscape. So far, the orders have been mostly heralded as an inventive way to streamline the resolution of complex cases. Complicating that consensus, this Article analyzes drawbacks associated with this potent device and advocates restrictions on the orders’ entry.
Jury Selection as Election: A New Framework for Peremptory Strikes
The ability of peremptory strikes to contribute to impartial juries has long been debated. This Note argues that both defenders and critics have overlooked an important value served by peremptory strikes beyond impartiality: democratic legitimacy. Just as elections help legitimate the state’s coercive power, jury selections help legitimate the trial’s coercive power.
Pleading Poverty in Federal Court
Approximately forty million Americans live in poverty. Yet we know little about how they encounter the federal civil justice system. This Article provides the first survey of the in forma pauperis pleading standards of all ninety-four federal district courts. It reveals an inefficient and arbitrary system, and proposes some solutions.